HAHAHA exaclty HORSE i am on your side for this one as before i was against and on his side. Know too many people like this in real life and it scares me that they are the ones who end up controlling other peoples lives down the road with the positions they are handed in life.
@Shotgun Surgeon, What is it like growing up an argoant egotistical rich kid who just doesnt understand why life isnt so easy for everyone else???
I see no personal merits here. Basically you’re a worthless dumb**** with rich parents (who would probably be ashamed of you if they saw all that money they are putting into your education still hasn’t improved your reading comprehension).
Good luck at medical school, you’ll need a lot of it.
This thread has turned into an epic pissing match and should be closed…
Stay focus, Daniel-san.
I enjoyed Battlefield: Bad Company 2 greatly. I have also found Brink to be what I was expecting, and I am looking forward to the DLC.
I really think that this whole debate centres around the fact that the gaming world is changing, and those who have been in it for a long time do not like what the next generation likes, and this is true in all areas of society.
If you don’t like what you are being given in Brink and other modern FPS games, instead of stating that you preferred the old days; give some solid feedback and explain what is wrong, what is missing and what needs to be changed and/or implemented.
I think that with game engine developers (Epic, Crytek, Unity) releasing mostly free versions of their engines and tools that hopefully we will see indie games that will fill the void of good fps shooters.
Please keep it civil folks. Personal attacks will only get you a forum vacation.
I dont play on PC, I play on console. I like BRINK. If you don’t, then ok. But to say that there will never be published a good game, ever again sounds a little pessimistic. I suppose you feel that rock is dead. Stated in the 80’s, 90’s, 00’s… 
[QUOTE=xartion;320275]Sadly, I’m pretty sure we will never again experience any FPS games as good as those from the 1999~2005 era.
Q3, RTCW, CoD1/CoD2, etc. Even non-idTech games like CS and UT were just priceless games with addictive multiplayer gameplay. Back then, I used to look forward to turning my computer on and spending HOURS on servers. Now, with bland, boring, poorly-optimized crap like Brink it’s just hard to find the motivation anymore 
It really is a shame. I’d hate to be a kid being raised in this era of PC gaming. They’ve truly missed out on good games. Maybe that’s why all of them play consoles these days. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.[/QUOTE]
If you want good FPS games support new IPS like Brink rather than the Madden Football type FPS games! (Same game with different packaging released every year (Call of Duty.)
[QUOTE=sirius89;320287]And everything cause of the ****ing consoles,this ****ty,old,rusty hardwarecrap. >.<
If there would be no consoles we would say crysis 1 and crysis 2 has ****ty graphics by now.
I swear i hate consoles so much.
If Brink would have been a PC only shooter we would have a WAY WAY WAAAAY better game now iam sure.[/QUOTE]
The consoles are not to blame here. I don’t like what games have become by any means. (all dumbed down for the lowest platform)
But the blame lies with developers/publishers. The publishers will often set a strict timeline, leading to much content being cut, many corners cut and games rushed out with little testing and often causing game to be released with many flaws, but there are also lazy devs who don’t do a proper job on a game and don’t provide any support to a game at all, despite how big its flaws are.
Most of the industy is just out to get $$$. Rushing game releases, bad porting from one platform to another and not providing future support for games. This is what is really hurting games these days.
But look at the two of the great PC game developers. Valve and Blizzard. They take their time to make games good and provide lots of support years after the games have been released. They have built up a loyal fanbase who stay around for quality products, good support and because they know that their money is well spent when purchasing their games.
There are sadly too few of these devs.
And Crysis 2 is a sad example. There were many doubts when it came to multiplatforming and porting the game, but the devs said that the game was going to be made for PC’s and later scaled down to the consoles. They did not deliver on that promise.
The devs of Battlefield 3 have made the same promise and I’m excited to see if they will deliver on it.
[QUOTE=Bluecewe;320939]I enjoyed Battlefield: Bad Company 2 greatly. I have also found Brink to be what I was expecting, and I am looking forward to the DLC.
I really think that this whole debate centres around the fact that the gaming world is changing, and those who have been in it for a long time do not like what the next generation likes, and this is true in all areas of society.
If you don’t like what you are being given in Brink and other modern FPS games, instead of stating that you preferred the old days; give some solid feedback and explain what is wrong, what is missing and what needs to be changed and/or implemented.[/QUOTE]
I’ll bite on that one.
It’s pretty simple really, modern games (especially FPS) are generally being designed for the lowest common denominator, easy to understand, easy to master. While simplicity is good in a game, they’ve also removed a lot of the skill and challenge, making them rather hollow experiences with no replay value, as for me, improving at something is part of the fun experience of doing it. Blame the ADD generation, imagine what they would have made of Jet Set Willy, a game where only 0.1% of the people who played it could even complete it!
It’s not all doom and gloom though, I’ve seen the gaming industry from it’s very earliest days and it goes in cycles (still remember the old Spectrum 48k vs C64 battles). More people are starting to turn away from the glitz of high budget graphics with no gameplay to low budget games with great gameplay, as shown by the recent successes of quite a few indie companies. These companies will then expand, make great FPS games for their niche audiences, and then go mainstream trying to break into the big market (where most of them fail and go under and one or two make megabucks) and the whole cycle repeats itself!
Additional - remember the old Jolt3 servers, was one of my favourite places to play, along with the two telnet belgium servers, always full of amazing teamplayers.
[QUOTE=Farlong;320972]The consoles are not to blame here. I don’t like what games have become by any means. (all dumbed down for the lowest platform)
But the blame lies with developers/publishers. The publishers will often set a strict timeline, leading to much content being cut, many corners cut and games rushed out with little testing and often causing game to be released with many flaws, but there are also lazy devs who don’t do a proper job on a game and don’t provide any support to a game at all, despite how big its flaws are.
Most of the industy is just out to get $$$. Rushing game releases, bad porting from one platform to another and not providing future support for games. This is what is really hurting games these days.
But look at the two of the great PC game developers. Valve and Blizzard. They take their time to make games good and provide lots of support years after the games have been released. They have built up a loyal fanbase who stay around for quality products, good support and because they know that their money is well spent when purchasing their games.
There are sadly too few of these devs.
And Crysis 2 is a sad example. There were many doubts when it came to multiplatforming and porting the game, but the devs said that the game was going to be made for PC’s and later scaled down to the consoles. They did not deliver on that promise.
The devs of Battlefield 3 have made the same promise and I’m excited to see if they will deliver on it.[/QUOTE]
Actually a lot o the issues spawn from another group that people rarely mention: The investors
ALL major game companies, except valve and a small list of others, are public. They trade stocks to raise additional funding or even to start up at all. But to do this they need to appease the investors. Big investors, those who hold massive amounts of shares need to be shown that their money isn’t going to waste. So when Activision makes Call of Duty and tons of people buy it they don’t think “lets drop franchise” they go “Lets make another”. This is because, in part, the investors support this because they buy MORE stocks in the company and thus the stock price increases, making both Activision and the Investors happy. Now this isn’t 100% to blame on either party, but acting as if this is a soul decision from designers and developers is hardly true. It is a mixture of many things to blame.
Brink is an example of an established company trying to put out another game in a series of a specific style of game. Now it could be pushing from the publishers or a financial crunch, but it is VERY obvious Brink was pushed for release. Games tend not to have a large percentage of their community playing in an almost unplayable state when they had time to QA the product fully.
[QUOTE=Beermachine;320983]I’ll bite on that one.
It’s pretty simple really, modern games (especially FPS) are generally being designed for the lowest common denominator, easy to understand, easy to master. While simplicity is good in a game, they’ve also removed a lot of the skill and challenge, making them rather hollow experiences with no replay value, as for me, improving at something is part of the fun experience of doing it. Blame the ADD generation, imagine what they would have made of Jet Set Willy, a game where only 0.1% of the people who played it could even complete it!
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if its necessarily the lowest common denominator. Certainly they angle their games to appease the largest crowd possible, but I think shooters do it while carving out their own niche (the good ones anyway). Hate them or love them, each game has its own identity.
Brink did this successfully in its gameplay in my opinion. It just let me down in a large amount of other areas, and thats where it fails to establish complete fun factor for me.
its time to face it: its hard to have a complicated game with a joystick-like controller and 10 buttons.
the way consoles are designed , they target the softcore playerbase.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;321018]its time to face it: its hard to have a complicated game with a joystick-like controller and 10 buttons.
the way consoles are designed , they target the softcore playerbase.[/QUOTE]
lolwut?
Are you being serious?
I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, but this is EXACTLY what I’m talking about in the first post. I probably shouldn’t admit this, but I have over 500+ hours of QuakeLive playing time and I can always come back to that game for more excitement. Fragging people COMBINED WITH team dynamics actually matters. It’s not one or the other, like with Brink. And that keeps it exciting for me, anyway
[QUOTE=Bakercompany;321035]lolwut?
Are you being serious?[/QUOTE]
Why wouldn’t he be? He’s right.
OP is correct. The golden era concluded long ago.
From a competitive FPS standpoint, Brink has a great concept and base to the game, however too many things missing and too many bugs that have already scared off a large percentage of the competitive community. With a pathetic 25-30 teams playing this game, the reality is that after these few cash prize tournaments conclude, this game will be abandoned and will die out and FPS gamers from the golden era will continue to search for that “next big thing”.
Will we ever find it? Probably not honestly. Consoles, the death of orgs like CPL, and what appears to be devs with a skewed vision of what constitutes a great fps combined, makes the future look as dismal as can be.
[QUOTE=sirius89;320287]Agreed with OP.
And everything cause of the ****ing consoles,this ****ty,old,rusty hardwarecrap. >.<
If there would be no consoles we would say crysis 1 and crysis 2 has ****ty graphics by now.
I swear i hate consoles so much.
If Brink would have been a PC only shooter we would have a WAY WAY WAAAAY better game now iam sure.[/QUOTE]
But that is only one side of the argument, without consoles, we wouldn’t be at the level of optimization that we are at now. Trying to get over the limitations of console have created new and interesting ways of getting good graphics tech side and it has only helped when they are adapted to PC. It would be easy to say that PC is where it is at because of consoles.
[QUOTE=Szakalot;321018]its time to face it: its hard to have a complicated game with a joystick-like controller and 10 buttons.
the way consoles are designed , they target the softcore playerbase.[/QUOTE]
I call bull and never use “softcore” again, we need to grow up a bit here. Key board and mouse were created to interact with computers, not for gaming and doesn’t make you “Hardcore.”
if your going to use words like those, you should learn what they mean first(nothing by the way).
[QUOTE=Bakercompany;321035]lolwut?
Are you being serious?[/QUOTE]
LOL,he nailed it,right on the point dude.
Let consoles be consoles but hell give them at least good hardware and not old rubbish with the new console generation Microsoft and Sony. >.<